Copepods in Boston tap water

I already explained the difference between the gemara and the SA. The SA is working with exactly the same thing we have, i.e. the gemara and the rishonim.

And what did the Gemorah have that we do not?

(Just as you explained why you wouldn't argue against the Gemorah [although you astonishingly maintain you can argue against the Mishna and Gemorah!!] saying "I simply think it is unwise, very unwise, being that the amoraim knew a lot more than us, whether with regard to obscure braisos, or kabalos from their rabbeim since Moshe.", the mechaber too knew a lot more than us, a better understanding of the mishna and gemorahs, and including a closer line of kabolos from rebbeim through Moshe Rabbeinu. -- This point, again, being made running along your stated line of thinking.)

yitayningwutI have no idea wut this screen name means. Do YOU know what this screen name means?

Braisas, rabbeim with a kabbalah all the way from Moshe rabbeinu, etc., and a whole different system. My point is the SA and everyone figuring out the halacha after the gemara is using the same gemara to figure out the halacha, so technically speaking anyone's svara is the same, as long as you're dealing with the same information. The mechaber doesn't claim to know anything from a kabbalah, he supports everything he says with gemaros and rishonim.

If one doesn't know the sugya well enough he would have to be foolish and reckless to do so. If you want to know if you are a person who can learn through a sugya properly, find someone who knows shas and poskim and ask him if he thinks you are capable.

and who says you know the sugya well enough

Ayin Panim L'Torah. maybe, just maybe your learning wrong pshat (i'm sorry but I don't think you know shas just from 1 sugya and therefore can't paskin until you know shas at least (there can be someone that is choleik somewhere else)

Regarding your claims (i.e. it is permissible for you (!) or your rebbeim to argue with a Tanna or Amora)... Surely you are aware that each generation (i.e. Tannaim, Amoroim, Rishonim, Achonim) could not argue with an earlier generation category (i.e. an Achron can't argue on a Rishon)! This is a basic fundamental point. Otherwise why the whole idea of diffenret generational categories?? I don't see how you can make the claims you are asserting earlier in the thread. Even an Amora cannot argue on a Tanna. And you claim YOU [or even your rebbeim] can!?

The Gemara will often attempt to disprove the statement of an Amora from a Mishnah, Beraisa, or Tosefta. If no other Tana is known to share the opinion of the Amora, the Gemara will either explain the statement of either the Tana or Amora in such a way that they are not contradictory, or it will conclude that the opinion of the Amora has been disproved.

One of the rules upon which Talmudic discussion is based is that the words of the amora'im must always be in agreement with the teachings of the tanna'im. Thus, one of the most common questions found in the Gemara is "meisivei" - which brings a tanna'itic source like a Mishnah, baraisa or tosefta that seems to contradict the words of the amora. In his defense, the amora will have to explain how the statement of the tanna can be understood as being in agreement with his own, or else show that there is another tanna with whom the amora agrees. If the amora cannot reconcile his statement with the teaching of the tanna'im, the Gemara will conclude "teyuvta" - the statement is disproved.

The Mechaber in Kesef Mishna, Hilchos Mamrim 2:1 writes:
Amorim can't dispute Tannaim, and later generations can't dispute Amorim because the Amorim accepted the authority of the Tannaim, and the later generations accepted the authority of the Tannaim.
The Chazon Ish says that such acceptance is an acknowledgement that the earlier generations are more correct since they are wiser and closer to Sinai. (Chazon Ish, Letters 2:24) And the Maharal (Beer Hagolah 6) says that the Amoraim recognized their inferior state in relationship to the Tannaim and therefore didn't argue with them.

In Choshen Mishpat, siman 25, there is a lengthy discussion concerning to'eh bid'var mishna. While the general thrust of the halacha concerns dayanim and situations where their piskey din can be overturned, it does shed light on our issue as well, since the assumption about a d'var mishna is that it is something than we (at whatever generation the reader find himself) may not argue against.

Mishna and gemara are accepted by all to be d'var mishna - meaning explicit piskey din in these texts ( dinim hamefurashim ). The Mechaber adds divrey haposkim. The Nos'ey Keylim have differing views as to what constitutes "haposkim". The Mechaber, for obvious reasons, did not include himself; however, later authorities do include him. For B'ney Ashkenaz, the Rama is included. Later authorities add the Shach and S'ma.

What we see from all of this, and the nos'ey keylim as well, is that there are many areas where we do not accept disagreement, and if someone does disagree, that position is rejected.

However, we also see, that in areas where there is no clear consensus, one has latitude to disagree.

One last point: There is a discussion in the Rama about an unresolved machlokes and how to decide. Rama says that one may not choose to follow the "katan" against the "gadol", rather follow the one who is "gadol b'chochma u-b'minyan", with minyan defined as the one who has the most followers ( see S'ma 18 ).

And of course do not forget what Rav Zera says in the name of Rava bar Zimona in Shabbos 112b.

Modern scientific methods. That is in fact the reason this thread was started -- Chazal and Rishonim would never have asured tap water. It is a machloket whether modern science may be used to overturn a decision of previous generations.

"Surely you are aware that each generation (i.e. Tannaim, Amoroim, Rishonim, Achonim) could not argue with an earlier generation category (i.e. an Achron can't argue on a Rishon)! This is a basic fundamental point."

No, it isn't fundamental at all; in fact it isn't true! Among the Ashkenazic Acharonim who have argued on Rishonim were the Magen Avraham, the Vilna Gaon and the Baal HaTanya.

No, it isn't fundamental at all; in fact it isn't true! Among the Ashkenazic Acharonim who have argued on Rishonim were the Magen Avraham, the Vilna Gaon and the Baal HaTanya.

I don't believe this to be true, do you have a source where they are arguing (also if it is, it's possible that they are holding like a different rishon (as we see where an amora argues with a mefurash mishna and we say he's going like this braisa etc.)

And Rambam argued on everyone

are you saying he argued with tannaim or amoraim that I for sure don't agree with you on (my rosh hayeshiva is very big into the rambam and can explain to you every time you think that's the case)Rishonim he can argue on b/c HE IS A RISHON

R' Ovadia probably knows all of shas bal peh including rishonim and acharonim (i've heard he has photographic memory) therefore with all the knowledge he has he can pasken and he usually paskens like the SA or the Ben Ish Chai (he doesn't say his own pshat)

yitayningwutI have no idea wut this screen name means. Do YOU know what this screen name means?

...

IOW First of all there's a lot more there than that one statement which I already quoted at least three times. And second of all according to your previous statements even R' Ovadia wouldn't be any different than me regarding this point, so if you are willing to concede that he is different, then just admit that I am right in principle instead of making this about how much I know.

yitayningwutI have no idea wut this screen name means. Do YOU know what this screen name means?

myfriend-

There is a lot that needs to be said to explain those points, and I apologize but I don't have the time right now. Maybe later. But for now, I think R' Ovadia's words should be enough to convince you that things aren't as clear-cut as you think.

The Mechaber in Kesef Mishna, Hilchos Mamrim 2:1 writes:
Amorim can't dispute Tannaim, and later generations can't dispute Amorim because the Amorim accepted the authority of the Tannaim, and the later generations accepted the authority of the Tannaim.
The Chazon Ish says that such acceptance is an acknowledgement that the earlier generations are more correct since they are wiser and closer to Sinai. (Chazon Ish, Letters 2:24) And the Maharal (Beer Hagolah 6) says that the Amoraim recognized their inferior state in relationship to the Tannaim and therefore didn't argue with them.

It seems like R. Ovadia argues with this

we can say 1 of 3 things
1)You don't understand R. Ovadia correctly

2) R. Ovadia doesn't hold like this and therefore each is somech on who they hold like, but to say that the people who follow poskim are ignorant is wrong.

Thank you. I found it very edifiying (well now that it is after the joseph escapade this entire thread's outlook now changes) but it still doesn't answer anything.

There are (at least) two questions remaining
1) Are copepods everywhere (I didn't open the links (yet) as I am not on a computer and it would be too complicated to do so)

2) If they are then why is only new york water filtered and not other places

I happened to have been informed that nassau/suffolk county and far rockaway do not have bugs and therefore do not need filtering. Presuming from this I would say, being that we don't have conclusive proof as to whether boston has bugs or not we should be able to safely assume that they don't being there aren't any filters in use (though the main water sources are filtered before they are sent out but that isn't due to bugs-let's not go there it is quite nauseating)

It was mentioned before that NYC, Boston, and Seattle are the large cities that don't filter their water. When I visited Seattle about 6 years ago, I asked Rabbi Kletenik, head of the Seattle Vaad, about the copepods ("little lobsters" as I call them). He told me then that the water was tested and they found no bugs. I recently heard in the name of Rabbi Hillel David that one does not need to filter the tap water in Seattle, but one who wants to be extra careful (I forgot the exact lashon, maybe I heard "baal Nefesh" or "yirai shamayim"...) should filter.

As far as the historical nature of the water, all we know for a fact is they exist in the bodies of water today. Perhaps we can speculate they arrived at a later time than the Tannaim, etc. But whether that is the case or not, I don't see how it effects the first two facts. "

They did not spontaneously generate. They were always here, but not readily visible to the naked eye. It is on that basis that many hold that the water is ok to drink. If it were assur to eat EVERY thing that had creatures swarming over it, but which we could not readily see, there would be NO food kosher to eat. There are living bacteria, germs, dust mites, etc.,etc., on virtually everything. If you would see what is sitting on your EYELIDS, it would make you throw up. But you can't, because they are too tiny to be viewed without the help of a microscope. And thus it is with much of what we are finding in the water. They are seen with a microscope. If you can readily see them with the naked eye, then they are large enough for the water to require filtering.

When the whole issue of tap water filtering came out i was NOT among the first to jump on the band wagon to filter,as I felt filtering was a mishegas. (eventually my Rav who is involved in Kashrus said one should filter)

Anyway,once I started filtering, I couldn't believe the garbage (chemical residue,dirt, brown spots from nearby construction, sediment etc...)that I found in my EZ Filter. I knew that this came from outside piping not from the pipes inside my house. I could not believe what I had been drinking prior to filtering my water. As when I poured out a cup from the tap it looked completley clear. Then I had learned that New York and other places had relied more on chemicals then a proper filtration process to cleanse its water.

If you say that in Boston you have the same ancient water delivery and filtration issues as NYC then forget about Kashrus issues, you will not believe what you are drinking.I have done a complete reversal in my thinking that filtering is a mishegas. For example during spring NYC water is filthy due to snow runoff into reservoirs, between Purim and Pesach I change the inner filter of the Ez filter twice a week as opposed to once per week/week and half as otherwise it gets clogged.(the first year this happened EZ filter was puzzled as to why customers were suddenly complaining that their filters were clogging faster and they investigated the issue)

If you dont want the clumsiness of a Brita get an EZ filter or have a plumber install a whole house or under sink filter. If you dont want to do the whole house try an EZ filter on one sink to start you wont believe what you'll find. it'll cost you (including a bag of inserts) around twenty bucks.

Boston does rely on filtering the water systems primarily due to the constant building and construction going on (whether new or improvements) but they filter the main water sources not the private houses (in other words they filter the water before it gets into the piping system)

Abcd2, we use the EZ filter, although I have never seen a single copepod.

BTW if you run out of inserts, a cotton ball works just as well. (We have the larger EZ filter.) Note that the filter is actually the metal part underneath. The insert only serves to prevent the metal filter fromm clogging.

B"H I have never seen them in my tap water. BUT -- after this entire issue came to light, I was so grossed out that I can no longer drinl regular tap water. I buy bottled water for regular drinking purposes. has anyone heard the notion that boiling the water (such as for coffee or tea) "melts" the copepods that might be present?

has anyone heard the notion that boiling the water (such as for coffee or tea) "melts" the copepods that might be present?

No, I've heard it doesn't. On the other hand, I've heard that an urn is okay because the copepods sink to the bottom and don't exit the spout.
Also, I've heard that in other cooked items, such as soup, there are bitul considerations which leaves more room for leniency.

I have only come to this thread late but I rememmber the keffavel about this some years ago. I think that oomis1105 has if right: if you start using microscopes to analyze anything-you cannot eat anything. The Almighty gave us eyes and ,as long as you cannot see it, it can never become treif. Microscopes are becoming more and more powerful and soon you can see microbes,bacteria and the like...as long as you cannot see it to the naked eye, it is muttor.

as in a previous copepod post, here is my two cents: My first exposure to the little critters were tiny white flecks in a bowl of water. With a 10x loupe, the parts were recognizable as crustacean. The whole live specimen is plainly visible (and it swims), but you will not have a whole or live organism in the pressurized, and chlorinated water, and the parts should be trapped in the faucet filter screen, as well as white flecks that can come from the disintegration of the plastic dip tube in a gas water heater. Therefor, there is no "berria problem, and not likely a "nosein taam" problem. The yuck factor is actually a good thing, praised in Bava Metzia 62b, and I made a nice living selling filters prior to my aliya. Here, I don't think it is on the radar, and in the north, they do, or did drink from the Kinneret.

For those that are machmir with microscopic issurim, if you visit the beach, be wary of the sea water, The top 2cm contains plankton, some of which is zooplankton.